Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> I don't think it's horribly credible that including software covered
> by the 4-clause BSD license in Debian violates the principle of
> least surprise when we specifically list it as one of our acceptable
> licenses in the DFSG.

The 4-clause BSD license is not one that we list as an acceptable
license.

DFSG <URL:http://www.debian.org/social_contract> §10:

     10. Example Licenses

     The GPL, BSD, and Artistic licenses are examples of licenses that
     we consider free.

That text isn't specific about *which* "BSD license" is an example of
a free license.

However, in that text, the term 'BSD' is an anchor to
<URL:http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license>, which is a copy of the
3-clause BSD license, without advertising clause. That seems explicit
that it's the version given as an example of a free license.

It would perhaps be better for the DFSG to disambiguate "BSD license"
in the text of the DFSG, but the hyperlink to the 3-clause BSD license
without advertising clause serves the purpose in this instance.

-- 
 \           “It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in |
  `\         trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so.” —Artemus |
_o__)                                  Ward (1834-67), U.S. journalist |
Ben Finney